|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why then did you start a thread on this subject? What purpose does it serve to talk about things that do not exist? Well mainly because I am intested to know why people believe what they do. Atheists and theists do both exist so from a human interest point of view they are worth talking about. The thread was about people's opinions and beliefs not directly about the existence of god or gods (although given the topic that is bound to come up indirectly at least)
And they prod others to affirm or disaffirm their beliefs. Well to the extent that I am hoping to make myself think about why I believe what I do in a bit more depth. Surely that is to be comended rather than dismissed?
Okay, so why even waste your time on every key stroke given the brevity of this life? It serves to keep me out of mischeif while my baby boy naps
What purpose does it serve Richard Dawkins to spend grossly inordinate amounts of time on something he alleges doesn't even exist? Religion and faith exist regardless of whether or not God does. If one believes, as Dawkins does, that religion does immeasurable harm to the world then it is only to be expected that he tackle the subject and related issues. The main related issue quite obviously being the varacity of the religious teachings at hand.
Even in the event that there is no God, its undeniable that human beings are drawn to the topic. If that's so, perhaps the more applicable question is why this is so. Why claim that theists are irrational people when it pervades all of humanity? If biology is all that we have, then surely there is a perfectly natural, perfectly logical, and perfectly excusable reason why theists find the compulsion to believe as they do.
Good question. My pet theory is that human intelligence, consciousness and mortality combined require us to ask questions that we are too ignorant to answer and too proud to admit ignorance of. The result is religion and belief in the supernatural. However evolutionary psychology may well one day have a properly formulated theory rather than my own ill thought out ad-hoc little suggestion.
But what difference does it make, especially in a universe that has no purpose or meaning? Why waste your breath?
My life and that of my son (for example) are no less meaningful to me than your life and that of those you love are to you.What possible reason is there for you assuming otherwise??????? Do you know that humans have been to the moon? Do you truly know that?
I know nothing for absolute certain in the sense you mean but I strongly doubt the moon landing conspiracy theories.
Similarly, your belief in evolution is based on genetic and/or morphological similarities. But you could not know whether God designed as such or if its simply a series of happenstances, like a leaf being tossed about in the wind. So I ask, what do you really know, and what do you really believe?
My confidence in evolutionary theory is based on reasonably comprehensive if not scientifically specialist examination of the theory and the body of evidence that there is for it. In addition a trust in the methods that have been used to formualate the theory and verify it's accuracy (methods that I have personal experience of in another arena) as well as a genuine wonder at just how powerful an all encompassing explanatory theory of new evidence it has proved to be in comparison to the rather ad-hoc non predictive alterantive assertions that make up the rival 'theories' (if they can even be called that).
Tell me the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I can't answer this until you clarify a few points for me. This my personal view so it will almost certainly contradict some formal definition somewhere but anyway - An atheist is someone who has actually considered the question of gods existence and concluded that there are no gods. They have consciously rejected the hypothesis that god exists.An agnostic, in my view, can have examined the evidence and decided they genuinely have no opinion either way, or they don't care either way, or have never considered the question, or don't even know that the question even exists etc. In other words they have not consciously decided either way through ignorance, apathy, uncertainty or any other reason. This is just my gut feeling and Crash for one would disagree that a distinction is even useful or necessary (see our conversation above for some atheist infighting)- but you asked what I thought so I answered as honestly as I could in the spirit of the thread as I intended it (i.e. in terms of imperfect personal views over formal definitions) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2201 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God.” quote: Funny. That is precisely the conclusion I came to when I grew out of belief in the supernatural and came to rest at Agnosticism/weak Atheism.
quote: But isn't the above statement the opposite of "arriving at a conclusion"?
quote: I do, and so do you. There are scores of things you don't know about, or know only a little bit about. About those two categories of things, you have no opinion, since you don't have enough information to form an opinion. This is true for everybody.
quote: No, that's not true. But, if we are honest, we intellectually navigate situations and concepts about which we are unable to conclude anything. We don't know. We may never know. And we have to leave it at that. I, nator, don't know if God exists or not. Please explain to me how this paralyzes me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But isn't the above statement the opposite of "arriving at a conclusion"? That's what I mean. If you're a person who requires absolute certainty to arrive at conclusions, then, indeed, you won't be able to arrive at a conclusion about the existence or nonexistence of God. But nobody lives like that. In the real world, reasonable people arrive at tentative conclusions because there's no such thing as certainty. I've arrived at the tentative conclusion that there's no such thing as God. I'm a "6" on the Dawkins scale. You might be a 5 - or you might be a 6 who doesn't feel comfortable admitting it. I don't think any human being is a 7 - conclusive, absolute certainty in the fundamental nonexistence of any such thing as "God". (That doesn't stop theists from arguing as though every atheist they encounter is a 7, but that's the straw-atheist they're arguing with. The 7 is the atheist that it takes too much faith to be, if you will.) I'll post an excerpt from Dawkins book if there's interest in using his scale as a continuum of theism/atheism. I find it much more informative than the standard "weak/strong atheist" dichotomy.
There are scores of things you don't know about, or know only a little bit about. Two guys come to you. One says "there's a teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri." The other guy says "there's no such teapot." Now, of course, no human has ever been to Alpha Centauri, so there's no evidence that such a teapot exists. Are you really telling me that there's no basis for deciding between these two propositions? That we should conclude both of these positions are equally supported? No, of course not. There's no reason to assume the truth of statements that have no evidence. And that which is not true is false. Reasonable people come to the tentative conclusion that the second guy is probably right, every single time. Does anybody come to the conclusion that he's absolutely certainly right? I don't know anybody who comes to absolute conclusions, except for religious believers.
But, if we are honest, we intellectually navigate situations and concepts about which we are unable to conclude anything. We don't know. We aren't certain, yes. I've never claimed certainty. But to say we don't know? I think that's incorrect. I think there's more than enough evidence - or lack of it, if you will - to merit coming to a conclusion.
Please explain to me how this paralyzes me. I'm a scientist (for purposes of example.) I maintain that nerves conduct information not in the form of electrical potentials, but in the form of sound waves. I advance no evidence to support my view. You're a surgeon, about to perform surgery. Your patient has been anesthetized with chemicals that assume that interrupting electrochemical pathways is sufficient to prevent transmission of pain information to the brain, but as far as you know, they do nothing to prevent the transmission of sound waves. Do you proceed? This is crucial life-saving surgery, but if you proceed on an unanesthetized subject, she'll die just from the pain. You have access neither to my data on the subject (if I even have any) nor any medical text on neurophysiology - only your experience as a surgeon, which, as you know, is all anecdotal and therefore can't be said to refute a scientific study. What do you do? I'm comfortable cutting away because assertions for which no data can be produced are probably wrong. If I were to wait for certainty before coming to a conclusion, as you suggest, my patient would die waiting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When evaluating evidence to verify or refute a hypothesis 100% certainty is rarely (if ever?) possible.
Conclusive evidence is not the same as certainty. I think there is evidence conclusive enough to reject the god hypothesis. Therefore I consider myself an atheist. If you personally genuinely consider the evidence as to be inconclusive then calling yourself an agnostic seems fair enough to me. However calling yourself an agnostic whilst considering the evidence against the god hypothesis as completely compelling but not 100% irrefutably certain seems to me to just be misleading. Without faith is anything 100% certain? Conclusive evidence is the best we can hope for in reality. So in your case are you genuinely unable to draw a conclusion or is it just that you cannot know with absolute certainty that God does not exist? There is a subtle difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1286 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Are you agnostic regarding the existence of the Norse god Loki? Are you a weak atheist? Are you a strong atheist?
Please answer honestly, and explain your answer in light of your discussion of these labels in Message 6. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Far be it from me to pre-empt NJs response - but that is exactly what I am going to do anyway!!
As someone who believes absolutely in the existence of the Christian God NJ necessarily believes that any other gods are false gods and is therefore effectively atheistic about them. Being atheistic about all other gods is logically consistent (indeed necessary) with having faith in one god so I don't think this line of questioning can realistically be used to expose the flaws in the theistic argument. That does not mean theism is logically defensible in many other ways but it does nullify this line of attack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1286 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You pre-empter you!
What you say is accurate, but it misses the point of my question, which is why I specifically asked him to explain his answer in in light of his previous discussion. IMO, if he simply responds as you have suggested, it'll be a cop out. {AbE} What's more, I'm not proposing this question to expose flaws in the thestic position as much as I am to expose flaws in NJ's discussion. Edited by subbie, : No reason given. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well in that case I look forward to NJs response and to your subsequent rebuttal!!
Over to you NJ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Being atheistic about all other gods is logically consistent (indeed necessary) with having faith in one god so I don't think this line of questioning can realistically be used to expose the flaws in the theistic argument. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
If, however, he has all-knowledge, he himself would be God not necessarily true. This idea of an all-knowing god holds for the abrahamic gods, and that's about it. Tell me, just how many times did the greek gods screw up because they did not know something? Or the Viking gods? How about the majority of gods--they tend to not be all-knowing. So, being "all-knowing" is not a qualification for god. It is a qualification for abrahamic gods, a small subsect of the immense diversity of gods. "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well I will be happy to admit my error if you can demonstrate it??
A complete unbelief in Loki would seem, to me, to be the logical and natural position of someone in NJs shoes. I am intrigued as to how it could be otherwise so please do enlighten me (if that sounds sarcastic - it is not meant to be so)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, that is somewhat different than what you had said in the message I replied to. In the earlier message you had said:
Being atheistic about all other gods is logically consistent (indeed necessary) with having faith in one god so I don't think this line of questioning can realistically be used to expose the flaws in the theistic argument. Now you say:
A complete unbelief in Loki would seem, to me, to be the logical and natural position of someone in NJs shoes. Only NJ can answer that one. Which comment is it you wanted addressed? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
There is a reason why polls are showing that atheists are among the most distrusted people. Who wants to hang around elitist mentalities that do not believe in any real set of morals? The hell? The number one reason people don't trust others is this: they are not me. Atheists do not believe in God(s). That puts them clearly in the group of "not me" for theists. The second reason? A misunderstanding. You make that clear here, when it comes to morality and the atheist. Of course you wouldn't trust them, because you misunderstand their position. Your claim about "no real set of morals" is bullshit. I have a pretty damn good moral compass, thank you very much, and it hardly ever fails me. And I'm fairly consistent in my application. Just because I don't define my morals the same way as you do or the guy down the street does not mean that I've no "real set". Even you christians would have "no real set" by your definition. Tell me, do all you billion plus christians follow or adhere to the same moral code? I doubt it. Relativism does not give you an easy out. That's not what it says. It basically says that you and I (when speaking of morals) have two diffferent moral codes. That there is no absolute code. That does not mean, I repeat, does not mean, that I don't have to follow my code, or that you don't have to follow your code. "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 240 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence (for instance) for a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centuri is good reason to conclude that there is no such teapot. I agree with the latter of your two statements, Crash. Your teapot analogy gives good reason to believe that there probably is no such teapot. But the former - "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"- to me, screams of fallacious reasoning. argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com Perhaps I'm being unreasonable and misinterpreting your statement. If that is the case, then would you mind clarifying a bit for the slower-witted, such as myself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the former - "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"- to me, screams of fallacious reasoning. I'm aware that it's considered a logical fallacy, but all scientific reasoning is fallacious.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024